I figure I would bring this over to a new thread as it relates in particular to the 11-Man prize fund layout. I would like to first discuss mine, as well as several other players disappointment last year regarding how the prize fund was distributed. Next, I would like to offer a better alternative on how it could be improved and even more beneficial for the majority of players.

Currently, the 11-man prize fund is distributed to each of the 3 divisions by a certain fixed ratio. I think the ratio is fine and I am not wishing for it to be altered. However, what I and other players, particularly fellow master players took offense to last year is how that money was spread within each division. The way it was set up allowed the 1st place winner in majors to win more money than everyone in masters except for the top 3 players. While first place in majors is a great accomplishment, anyone would agree that 4th place in masters is a greater accomplishment and is probably deserving of more money. Also, the top 2 finishers in minors won more individual prize earnings than 70% of the individuals in the masters division. Once again, this is a nice accomplishment, but I think anyone would agree that finishing at the bottom of masters is even a greater accomplishment, considering only the best players can play in masters. Personally, I think that the bottom people in masters should probably be winning more than any player playing in the minors. I also think they should be winning more than just about any major player, with maybe an exception to the top few spots. I would also apply this principle when comparing majors and minors as well. The truth is, every master player has worked extremely hard to get to the level they are at. They should be properly rewarded for it. That is not to say majors and minor players don't work hard to improve, but as a whole they probably have not put in as much hard work as have the master players. The same is true if you compare major and minor players. As a whole, the major players have probably put in more overall time and effort than the minor players have. Furthermore, this should be one of the goals of our organization. We want to motivate players to try and get better in order to keep alive not only the game, but the high competitive level of play in the game. One of the best ways to do this is to motivate players. If for example a player knows they can always count on winning more money by just finishing toward the top of majors every year, than if they played at the bottom of masters, then this will motivate them less to try and improve in order to move up to masters.

Now like I said, my intention here is not to try and persuade anyone that more money should be taking out of the lower divisions and giving to masters. Rather, what I am suggesting is that the money in each division be distributed to each individual ranking differently. Basically the way it would work is that the top players in each division would not win as big of a share of the prize fund. The top players will still win the most money, but the overall prize fund would be distributed more evenly throughout the division. For example, this would ensure that a player who finished toward the bottom of masters would still win more than all the minor players as well as most of the major players. Similarly, players who finished at the bottom of majors would be ensured the they win more than mostly all the players in minors, with maybe the top few spots being an exception. While this may be less favorable to the top finishers in each division, it would be more favorable to everyone else underneath them. For example, in Masters there were 23 players. My suggestion would give less money to the top 7 finishers, but it would give more money to each of the remaining 16. The same principle applies for majors as well. For minors, it is more evenly split. The top half of the division will earn less than before, but the bottom half will earn more. In other words, my prize fund layout suggestion benefits more players and gives a much more fair distribution of the prize earnings. Below, I am going to show you the prize fund layout from last years Nationals. Then below that one, I am going to provide my own alternative, which I believe to be better giving it presents more fairness and benefits the majority of the players.

Prize fund layout from last year with a 58/27/15 earnings ratio (Masters/Majors/Minors)

Traveling and playing in tournaments is not about the money, but I think most people can agree that it is not right for a minors level player who finishes top 3 to walk away with as much money as a master level player who finished in the top half.

I agree that the prizes in the lower divisions should be considerably lower than those in the masters. However, I also think we should do away with the practice of giving every single player a prize. Instead, we can make the top 3-5 places actually lucrative in each division. Alternately, we can give modest increases to the top 3-5 spots and use the balance of the money to cover event expenses and materials (e.g. new digital clocks), and to fund state/district and national organizations. It would be nice, for example, to have funding available to cover the referee's room and board, or to subsidize travel costs for notable champions or new players. In my opinion we should establish these patterns now, while we have the benefit of generous benefactors like Joe McDaniel, rather than waiting until the money runs out.

It has always seemed odd that checkers pays out 100% of the field at tournaments. I do not know of any other sport/game that does that. However, the goal is to encourage more players to come to tournaments and improve their game, without chasing away those who are already coming. I feel like Joe's suggestion is more of a compromise. Joe's suggestion also helps to prevent sandbagging, as there would be less of a reason for players to play in a division lower than their skill level would otherwise allow.

From my experience from other sports/games, sponsors always have the option of choosing where/how their money is spent, outside of the payout structure. This is essentially what is currently done with the Lindsay and Oldbury fund. So sponsors do not have to worry about their money being spent differently than what they would prefer. After that the referee/organization can use bonus money as they see fit, while keeping the payout structure intact. Joe is just using last year as an example, but essentially what he is wanting to do is fix the payout structure percentage so that the winners in minors do not win more than master level players who played against far superior competition.

Alex, we are happy to discuss ideas to help move the game forward. However, none of us are really in a position to do anything at this time. You, however, were voted to be the players rep. This means you are still in position to help change things for the better.

bazkitcase5 wrote:Alex, we are happy to discuss ideas to help move the game forward. However, none of us are really in a position to do anything at this time. You, however, were voted to be the players rep. This means you are still in position to help change things for the better.

I kind of agree with Clayton here. The hard truth is, we are young and want to change things, but that is also why many don't want to listen to us. We need you to take the lead not only because you are the player rep, but because you are more respected and have greater influence than us.

In this particular case in Branson ... Here is my personal opinion: we have the only one major sponsor: Joe and his family. I think it is very much up to them to make decision - how he and his family wants to contribute and spend their money.

That is the point of the discussion Alex. A particular sponsor has the right to dictate how they want their sponsorship money used, just like it is in other games/sports that I have competed in. So if the sponsor, or Mr. McDaniel in this case, wants the money more spread out, they can do what they want. Our goal here is the establish a payout structure that is genuinely encourages players to improve their play so they can play in the highest division their skill level allows and to prevent sandbagging.

Joe Moore simply used last year as an example to point out how it would have been more beneficial for a weak master level player to easily win more money by playing lesser competition. I know ratings help prevent this for the most part, but there are always new players coming in, who do not have a rating that reflects their true skill level.

If anybody has arguments against what we are saying, then I personally would like to hear all opinions. I am genuinely curious to know if people think it is fair that minor level players can win more money by playing against lesser competition. Particularly in a game like checkers, that can take many years of playing and studying to achieve master status.

Thanks for your support guys. At the very least, I would be glad if the idea was just mentioned and to see what peoples opinions are. If we can have a vote that would be great, but I know that is a lot to ask considering I brought up this topic a little close to the tournament. I also understand it is Joe's tournament and money and I respect his right to spend the money how he wishes. I would also like to hear others opinions/suggestions on this topic.

Lets talk about this in Branson. This is too serious subject. And I also hope that other ACF officials and Joe join our conversation. Maybe we come up with something valuable. I'll try to set a meeting.

The big issue I think helps address or justify payouts is enforcement of forced entry into the proper division according to rating. Personally, I'm not a fan of communistic payouts. It doesn't encourage performance, merely attendance. Of course the wishes of the donors should be respected, to the greatest of fairness.Ray